Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

maybe Kelly just moved for more $$$

and perhaps he wasn't being treated as well any longer at ND

grass was greener

Kelly needled Notre Dame for more money on more than one occasion.  But as to LSU's reasons for hiring him I'm at a loss.

Right, but what's in question is that he did recruit top ten classes consistently at ND, with an negligible difference in average than LSU over the same time frame, yet still didn't win big games apparently.  Which is why it seems like a flawed narrative to assume that he can do better in Baton Rouge. 

I don't mean to be argumentative, I'm just trying to figure out why "they" are so certain he'll be better here than with touchdown Jesus. 

There are studies that show ND is by far the most overrated team when comparing preseason rankings to the final, actual rankings.
It's possible it's the same in recruiting.
.
Another idea that just popped into my head is that maybe ND's top recruits are at certain positions....TE, G, LB.  They have plenty of * but they're not getting the DT that runs a 4.7 forty or anything like that.  If none of your 5* guys are CBs or DEs or RBs with speed & size, then it's sort of a waste.
Connected to that point is that I always found it funny that every year, they top 100 players would have like 7 TEs in it, and only about 1.5 of them would become a big contributor.  Offenses weren't really built to rely on a TE, but that's changed a bit recently.  But the point is that it was silly to include so many TEs at the top end of the bell curve if their ceiling was 30 catches a year.  
Anywho, maybe ND's elite talent has mostly been at positions that limit their ability to shine.  Idk, I'd have to study it.

Kelly has had ND in the title game twice I think. Both resulted in SEC smack downs. He’s had them in the CFP, I think he got smacked down there as well.

He probably figured if you can’t beat them, join them. Plus, LSU has won the MNC 3 x this century. Already a bigger blue blood than Neb, OU, ND, etc.

That's not how you become a blue blood.  It's how you become a Miami or Florida State or Clemson.

By definition, there is no such thing as a "modern" blue blood.  

But it's certainly arguable that being a recently successful program, feels better than being a foundering blue blood.

It doesn’t really matter what does and doesn’t constitute a blue blood.
What happened in the 1950’s, 60’s, 70’s, 80’s, is history.

Notre Dame, Nebraska, they may never win big again. Michigan may never win big, or USC.

Paradigms shift all the time.

I disagree.  No matter how much recent success you have had, you are one bad hire away from being irrelevant. On the flip side, the Blue bloods, the true Blue bloods, are immediately well set up, as soon as they get that hire right.  Even when they are down, as far as results, the talent is always there

21st Century Blue-Bloods
(2000-2021:  top 15 win% AND won a NC)
1. Ohio State (2002, 2014)
2. Oklahoma (2000)
3. Alabama (2009, 2011, 2012, 2015, 2017, 2020)
4. Georgia (2021)
5. LSU (2003, 2005, 2019)
6. Clemson (2016, 2018)
7. USC (2004)
8. Texas (2005)
9. Florida (2006, 2008)
10. Auburn (2010)
------------------------------
Teams with top 10 win%, but no NC:  Oregon, Wisconsin, TCU, Miami
Teams with a NC, but lower win%:  Florida St
.
If I had to give NC bonuses to re-rank those 10 programs this century, it'd look like this:
1. Alabama
2. Ohio St
3. LSU
4. Clemson
5. Oklahoma
6. Georgia
7. Florida
8. USC
9. Texas
10. Auburn.......you could rank FSU 9th maybe, but idk.

My observation as well. Amazing that Texas still ranks in that list despite being very bad the last dozen years.